ArticleGigaScience2021
Myth-busting the provider-user relationship for digital sequence information.
Article in GigaScience, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- VirJenDB: a FAIR (meta)data and bioinformatics platform for all viruses.Nucleic acids research · 2026Article
- A new indicator for the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework: Capturing non-monetary benefit data from access and benefit-sharing agreements.Bioscience · 2025Article
- Ethical bioprospecting and microbial assessments for sustainable solutions to the AMR crisis.IUBMB life · 2025Review
- International agreements and the plant genetics research community: A guide to practice.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Article
- Indigenous peoples and local communities as partners in the sequencing of global eukaryotic biodiversity.npj biodiversity · 2023Review
- Multilateral benefit-sharing from digital sequence information will support both science and biodiversity conservation.Nature communications · 2022Article
- Benefit sharing: Why inclusive provenance metadata matter.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
- Quantitative monitoring of nucleotide sequence data from genetic resources in context of their citation in the scientific literature.GigaScience · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) formally recognized the sovereign rights of nations over their biological diversity. Implicit within the treaty is the idea that mega-biodiverse countries will provide genetic resources and grant access to them and scientists in high-income countries will use these resources and share back benefits. However, little research has been conducted on how this framework is reflected in real-life scientific practice.
resultCurrently, parties to the CBD are debating whether digital sequence information (DSI) should be regulated under a new benefit-sharing framework. At this critical time point in the upcoming international negotiations, we test the fundamental hypothesis of provision and use of DSI by looking at the global patterns of access and use in scientific publications.
conclusionOur data reject the provider-user relationship and suggest a far more complex information flow for DSI. Therefore, any new policy decisions on DSI should be aware of the high level of use of DSI across low- and middle-income countries and seek to preserve open access to this crucial common good.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.